Modern era triggered people to create new architecture such as flats and houses. Moreover, most people want building with long lasting whereas others want building quickly and cheaply. I am personally convinced that both of them have some reasons.

To begin with, many architects made amazing design of buildings. Moreover, high technology of modern building forces an architect to improve their design become unique and outstanding. For example, modern people prefer to have their own architect to design their house as a place that they imagine. Certainly, it is need more detail design to build fabulous houses. Next, as we can see the beautiful house from Anang, famous singer in Indonesia, that his house became different with detail ornament likely palace of Arab States. Obviously, people need more money and more time to dream their dream houses becomes true.

Nevertheless, some people prefer an instant flat which are cheaper and quicker than the first house. Perhaps, the important things for them are comfort houses with limited budget. Thus, people will buy house in apartment or home rent area which are available and affordable to reach as quick as they can. In other ways, they do not pay much money because some regency gives them easier of payment by taking monthly payment approximately 100 until 500 USD on each flat. After all, people could add some ornaments in their house from timber or metal. Others they could put the pictures of modern galleries to make their home more fashionable.

From my point of views, people could design their new houses by taking own architect to make a great outstanding houses. Of course, people take much money for creating new design for their lovely houses. Whereas, some people prefer to other flats which are available and affordable. According to Indonesian Minister of Finance, Indonesia people spent fifty percent from their salary for appropriate accommodation such as house and vehicles. Others there are people with less salary who need better flats for living. By that, I think government should help to provide cheaper flats for their citizen with less money. The government could make regulation for create a cheaper flat from them.

To sum up, I agree to both of them that having great outstanding houses are like dreaming for some people who keep much money. Whereas, I think it is better to accommodate other people with minimum salary to live in an affordable flats or apartment by some regulations from government.

Housing is one of basic needs which have to fulfill by people for protecting them from hot, cold, storm, rain and so on. So many dwellings are designed as perfect as possible and spend long time. On the other hand, accommodations are constructed fastly and need no much money. Usually the users of both choices are different depend on their wealth.

　　In my country, house is used by the owner to show prestige and causing many people makes their place to live as their dreams. They choose quality materials, the best circumstance to place their house or employ an architect. The owner hopes the house can last for long time through her or his children. The occupant also can feel comfort in there, while the type of that house needs long time and much money.
　　
　　In contrary, the simple house which needs quick and cheap prize are also needed by some people. For instance the collegian, I am a university student who prefer inexpensive prize flat. In addition, if a disaster happens, the government must give the victims place to stay or live. In 2008, when Tsunami broke Nangroe Aceh Darusalam province, my president commanded social ministry and general disaster tackling organization to construct complexes in the short term. The buildings had no good quality material because the committees had no long time to prepare all properly. They only though, how the Aceh citizens could be still alive.
　　
　　In conclusion, I think that both type of flats or houses are important to be considered as the usage. While the fas accommodations ahould be built by government or private with declining risk management.

trực tiếp…

Constructing sustainable building architectures or instant houses when people need accommodations is still a controversial issues with many contrasting opinions. From my point of view, I think that ordinary houses or simple apartments which are constructed to last in a certain time would be fit with the income of most people.

Many people claim that high quality dwellings will be safer and can contribute to protecting environment. In the other words, to ensure the comfort feeling of users, the solid building will be the fundamental consideration, especially families with children. Besides, once house repair or a new construction will be conducted, they will discharge a large amount of solid wastes to environment, as well as take more time and money to recycle those unused materials. However, it is difficult for people who do not get high paying jobs to invest a lot of money to buy these accommodations.

It can be undenied that inexpensive price flat might be suitable for those who want to save money and time to have a residential living space. Moreover, instant flats are not only fit people with a limited budget or tight construction schedule, but also decrease housing inadequate in many crowded cities. Therefore, this is the best choice of poor people to settle up in a short term, instead of becoming homeless. For example, in 2015, there were more than 20 cheap apartments which were constructed for poor workers, this fugure increased almost double in comparison with the previous years to support them with the simple accommodations. Furthermore, this kind of architecture is easier to change in the rapid paceof design trend development.

All in all, each form of houses has its own characteristics, depend on residential demands or housing expenditures. However, I prefer to live in a simple house with a long lasting to an instant flat, so that I can save money and have safety living space.

In the current world, most of the people to celebrate any special occasion by inviting a lot of people. The discussion that throwing too much money to hold parties birthday, marriage or any other special event is a debatable one, with strong logics provided by the supporters of both the views.

A few argue that the special events need to be celebrated grandly, as it happens only a few times in a lifetime. For instance, marriage is considered to occur once in a lifetime and the people want to have the memory of that event until their last breath. This is possible only when the location is well decorated and all of the friends and the neighbours are invited. By spending limited money, it is almost impossible to achieve something special which will be remembered forever. Thus it is obvious, why some people incline towards this point of view.

On the other hand, some people believe that it is not right to spend a huge amount money on personal celebrations as there are a lot of people across the globe under starvation. For example, in most of the African countries, many people do not even have food to eat for a single meal a day. In case, the money spent on celebration can be sent to the people who are really in need, definitely, a lot of life can be saved. Hence, it is clear why a few individuals refute with high spending parties.

Considering the memories of special occasions as well as starvation, spending much money for parties has been supported and refuted by many. Even though memories of some special events are important, saving human life from starvation is more important. Hence, in my opinion, it is necessary to cut down the spending on parties and spend that money for the poor people’s food.

https://www.tienganh123.com/viet-essay ??????

Một số người tin rằng công nghệ ảnh hưởng xấu đến cuộc sống của chúng ta và các khía cạnh thao túng của nó sẽ kiểm soát lối sống của chúng ta. Tuy nhiên, những người khác lại cho rằng công nghệ mang lại nhiều lợi ích cho loài người. Bài luận này thảo luận về cả hai quan điểm. Tuy nhiên, tôi nghĩ rằng công nghệ sẽ có lợi miễn là chúng ta kiểm soát nó, và không để nó kiểm soát chúng ta.

Đầu tiên, công nghệ đã định hình đáng kể cách sống của con người và nó không ngừng làm cho cuộc sống của chúng ta trở nên dễ dàng hơn. Thông thường, các nhà phát triển công nghệ công bố các tiện ích công nghệ sáng tạo dễ sử dụng, tiện dụng, sáng tạo và tiết kiệm. Những thiết bị này cải thiện đáng kể cuộc sống của con người và chúng ta có một lối sống tốt hơn ngày nay so với quá khứ do những cải tiến và đổi mới trong công nghệ. Ví dụ, điện thoại di động đã được cải thiện đáng kể về hiệu suất và tính hữu dụng. Ngày nay, chúng đang được sử dụng trong mọi khía cạnh của cuộc sống bao gồm thanh toán hóa đơn, liên lạc, ghi chú, lướt mạng và cho nhiều mục đích thiết thực khác. Thế giới hiện đại thực sự được xác định bởi các công nghệ hiện đại.

Mặt khác, công nghệ không đến mà không có hậu quả tiêu cực. Nó đã bắt đầu kiểm soát nhiều khía cạnh cuộc sống hàng ngày của chúng ta và có thể trở nên thảm khốc hơn bất kỳ ai có thể tưởng tượng nếu nó vượt ra khỏi tầm kiểm soát. Ví dụ: mọi người đang sử dụng thiết bị di động ngày nay, vì vậy họ lưu trữ ảnh cá nhân, chi tiết liên hệ và thậm chí cả tệp trên điện thoại của họ. Vì vậy, rất dễ dàng để tin tặc xâm nhập vào điện thoại của ai đó và sử dụng chúng một cách sai trái. Do đó, gian lận giao dịch trực tuyến, vi rút và trojan độc hại, nguy hiểm cho sức khỏe, thiếu liên kết cá nhân và xã hội là do chúng ta nghiêng về công nghệ. Chúng tôi có nghĩa là kiểm soát công nghệ, không bị kiểm soát bởi nó.

Tóm lại, dù công nghệ có những nhược điểm nhưng không thể phủ nhận rằng không phải mọi thứ mà con người tạo ra đều hoàn mỹ. Hơn nữa, công nghệ có thể rất hữu ích nếu nó được sử dụng đúng cách và đủ thận trọng. Vì vậy, chúng ta nên kiểm soát công nghệ, đừng để nó kiểm soát chúng ta...

It is certainly true that people in rural areas move to cities in order to achieve high standards of living, but indeed life in cities is more challenging and difficult when compared to villages. There are several reasons for this kind of problem and various measures could be taken by government to improve the situation.

Life in the cities has its drawbacks, for instance, the cost of living in cities is higher than in rural areas, especially housing is much more expensive. As a result, homelessness is becoming more common in cities. There are also more serious problem like traffic congestion and some people do not manage work that can lead to people to commit crime. Moreover, there is a lack of sense of community in big cities, people do not even know their neighbors. Life in cities can be stressful and individuals do not have much time for themselves and their families, as a result the gap between family members is on the increase.

To overcome the increasing troublesome life in cities, the government should start some active measures. Firstly, one key to cities work better is good planning. Planners need to transform cities to make them beneficial for all citizens. Cities need green transport and green spaces; they need to be energy efficient and pedestrian friendly, with housing and jobs to attract people to come to live there. Secondly, the authority should make stricter laws to reduce traffic such as allowing ownership of only car per family and increasing the price of the car and petrol. And people would be encouraged to use public transport rather than driving. Finally, the initiatives could solve the housing problem by building high-rise apartment or by expanding cities.

In conclusion, it seems to me that there are various reasons for the problem in cities life that we are facing now and steps need to taken to tackle this problem.

Cities are often seen as places of opportunity, but there are also some major drawbacks of living in a large metropolis. In my opinion, governments could do much more to improve city life for the average inhabitant.

The main problem for anyone who hopes to migrate to a large city is that the cost of living is likely to be much higher than it is in a small town or village. Inhabitants of cities have to pay higher prices for housing, transport, and even food. Another issue is that urban areas tend to suffer from social problems such as high crime and poverty rates in comparison with rural areas. Furthermore, the air quality in cities is often poor, due to pollution from traffic, and the streets and public transport systems are usually overcrowded. As a result, city life can be unhealthy and stressful.

However, there are various steps that governments could take to tackle these problems. Firstly, they could invest money in the building of affordable or social housing to reduce the cost of living. Secondly, politicians have the power to ban vehicles from city centres and promote the use of cleaner public transport, which would help to reduce both air pollution and traffic congestion. In London, for example, the introduction of a congestion charge for drivers has helped to curb the traffic problem. A third option would be to develop provincial towns and rural areas, by moving industry and jobs to those regions, in order to reduce the pressure on major cities.

In conclusion, governments could certainly implement a range of measures to enhance the quality of life for all city residents.

Đáp án A.

Dịch câu hỏi: Tại sao người dân địa phương thích dịch vụ du lịch?

A. Khách du lịch mang tiền.

B. Khách du lịch giúp dạy người dân địa phương.

C. Khách du lịch nói với người dân địa phương về kinh doanh.

D. Khách du lịch phá hủy văn hóa truyền thống.

Thông tin ở đoạn cuối: “Most local people want more tourism because tourists bring money and help local businesses.” (Hầu hết người dân địa phương muốn phát triển du lịch bởi khách du lịch mang theo tiền và giúp cho các doanh nghiệp địa phương).

Industries and businesses are the most concern in many cities as they make the city more congested and pollute the environment in one hand, while creating job opportunities and contribute to the development of the city on the other hand. Many of the enterprises are operated and promoted in bigger cities only. Encouraging them to move to regional areas is a good idea. I have more benefits than drawbacks.

There are several advantages to the industry and should take initiatives to so. The most important aspect is the development of the regional areas. Setting up of enterprises in rural areas will help to develop basic infrastructures transportation, electricity and road in rural areas. In addition, the people of this area will have the golden opportunity of employment and that would enhance the living standard as well. Moreover, the economic activity of the area will increase and that will let the government take further initiatives in order to develop this urban area. The different types of small businesses and industries hotel, lodge, suppliers will emerge and that will support other businesses and add value to the economy of these areas.

Regional offices are often helpful to expand businesses and to reduce the manufacturing and operating costs. Có nhiều công nghiệp lớn nhất sẽ được thực hiện từ này. Again the pressure on the big cities would reduce and that would lessen many serious issues pollutions, traffic jam and waste management.

Despite this, there are several disadvantages of moving businesses and industries to regional areas. One of the most prominent drawbacks is the exploitation of natural resources. The industry will use forest resources, which will cause environmental degradation pollution, climate change and much more. The gradual increase in the population size in such urban areas will increase the crime rate. Finally relocating an industry to a different place involves a great amount of costs and the industry would not want to spend this amount naturally.

All in all, comparing the good look and the bad, I think that the government must encourage the industries and businesses to move to the regional areas where they would operate in better fashion for the overall betterment of economy and environment and population.

Đáp án: B